The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

The politics of Osborne's public sector job cull

Why the Tories believe that cutting public sector jobs will help them win.

Chancellor George Osborne
George Osborne plans to cut 730,000 public sector jobs between 2011 and 2017. Photograph: Getty Images.

Few noticed it but buried deep in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest set of forecasts was the revelation that another 20,000 government jobs will be cut by 2017, bringing the total to 730,000.

It’s often said that George Osborne’s cuts have barely begun but that doesn’t apply to to public sector employment. Since Osborne entered the Treasury, 350,000 government jobs have been scrapped, with another 460,000 due to go by 2017 [the 730,000 figure refers to cuts from 2011-2017]. The public sector workforce is now at its smallest level since 2003 [see graph]. In the words of the usually restrained Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development we are witnessing “a tectonic shift in the underlying structure of the labour market”.

A
By 2017 the number of public sector workers will have declined from a peak of 6.3m in 2009 to 4.9m, the lowest level since comparable records began in 1999. What explains this dramatic cull? Fiscal considerations, naturally, play their part. The deficit is forecast to be £126bn this year [£10bn higher than originally expected] and Osborne wrongly believes that slashing the state is the best way to reduce it. In an inversion of Keynes, he thinks that if you take care of the deficit, unemployment will take care of itself. But Osborne, who is both Chancellor and the Tories’ chief electoral strategist, also has political considerations in mind. The Spectator’s James Forsyth quotes one senior Conservative thus: “You create a bigger private sector, you create more Tories.”

The polls certainly suggest as much. Data from Ipsos MORI shows that while Labour enjoys a 28-point lead among public sector workers, it trails the Tories by six points among their private sector counterparts [see graph].

Logic says that if you reduce the former group and expand the latter [the OBR forecasts an extra 1.7 million private sector workers by 2017] , the Tories will benefit. A smaller public sector means fewer people with a vested interest in high levels of state spending. Even if the private sector fails to pick up the slack, studies show that the unemployed are among the least likely groups to vote. Putting Labour voters on the dole is win-win for the Tories. Osborne may claim that his cuts are born of necessity, rather than ideology, but be in no doubt about the political nature of his project.

29 comments

David edwards's picture

LETS JUST GET THESE UNCAREING BASTARDS OUT.THEY HAVE JUST ABOUT UPSET EVERY ONE EXCEPT THE SMALL FEW WHO HAVE OODLES OF CASH.I WOULD BET MY LIFE THEY ARE OUT NEXT TIME.
MARK THESE WORDS,THEY HAVENT A HOPE IN H3LL.

Fraziel1's picture

"So you went from costing the country £15-20k while a public sector worker to only costing £3k ish now you're in Job Seekers allowance (or similar...sounds good finance to me! "

You are talking about peoples livelyhood, families, children, mortgages you complete and utter arsehole. Not every public sector job is a non job.Loads of them are bloody important.If tories were not such ideologically driven greedy pricks only interested in governing for the wealthy, they might see that and stop behaving like psychopaths.

David edwards's picture

How true you are these dick heads are ruining peoples lives without a worry or care in the world i will make sure all my families will vote this time round just to get these morons out.

Fraziel1's picture

"So you went from costing the country £15-20k while a public sector worker to only costing £3k ish now you're in Job Seekers allowance (or similar...sounds good finance to me! "

You are talking about peoples livelyhood, families, children, mortgages you complete and utter arsehole. Not every public sector job is a non job.Loads of them are bloody important.If tories were not such ideologically driven greedy pricks only interested in governing for the wealthy, they might see that and stop behaving like psychopaths.

DMyers's picture

So George's logic seems to suggest that when someone starts work in the private sector, they'll start to vote Tory. I don't think there is any evidence that this will happen. OK, evidence from a recent poll has measured voting intention between public and private sector AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME, but this is not an indication of how someone is likely to vote if they change from one sector to the other. Any attempt to show that these statistics paint that picture must be taken with a huge degree of skepticism, since that is not what is being measured. This is part of the problem with people who do not understand statistics trying to interpret what they mean. Remember, George, that they only represent a sample of the population as a whole which is taken to be representative - they are not necessarily the 'truth' of things, and should not be taken as such. Indeed, the 34:40% ratio in the private sector is likely to be affected by the margin of error, meaning that the 'true' picture may be even closer than that which appears.

Trevelyan's picture

So if the Tories are acting "ideologically" when they reduce the number of civil servants, does that mean Labour are doing the same when they increase them?

Dickie1's picture

Again this is simplistic. They were acting ideologically in the sense that having nurses helps keep people well (even less well-off Tories who want them out of a job but can't afford to go private); having police keeps down crime, the army safeguard the country, teachers teach, etc.

Labour were not alone in thinking the country was better off than it was - there was a global crisis - in fact Tories blame just that when it suits them to excuse more cuts. Where did the global crisis begin? It was in banks, which public money bailed out. Putting this cock-up right is a big job and requires clear sight, something not possible for someone who expresses glee at someone losing their job. I would call that tribalism and yes, ideology.

K J Kearns's picture

Bigc your comments to Bee Clarke sum up why I dislike the tories

Bill23's picture

What amazes me are the number of people and politicians who think the public sector creates wealth, when in fact it does the opposite.

Herbert's picture

I have to ask the usual question: Does a nurse working in the private sector 'create wealth' while a nurse doing precisely the same job in the NHS doesn't? And if you believe that, will you explain the mechanism?

Bee Clarke 's picture

I lost my public sector job in October 2010 and, apart from 2 Xmas stints at the Post Office, haven't worked since. So I've gone from paying tax & NI to drawing benefits off the state. What a genius Gideon is! No wonder he has now run up the UK's largest ever deficit & presided over the longest recovery from a recession in UK history!

BigC's picture

So you went from costing the country £15-20k while a public sector worker to only costing £3k ish now you're in Job Seekers allowance (or similar...sounds good finance to me!

Largest deficit?? I think you'll find good old Gordon did that! Sounds like you're making the classic mistake of comparing deficit with debt.

Herbert's picture

I notice you don't ask what job he was doing in the public sector. The usual simplistic world view of someone trapped in an ideology.

Dickie1's picture

“You create a bigger private sector, you create more Tories.”

This is typical of the simplistic Tory world-view. As if everyone is a Tory looking for the opportunity to 'come out' as a miserable, selfish, morally-bankrupt scoundrel.

upnorthkid's picture

"“You create a bigger private sector, you create more Tories.”"

So let me try and understand the logic here. Forced into redundancy by conservative policies. Likely to suffer at least a period of the indignity of unemployment and the stresses of job hunting. Almost certainly to end up worse paid and with fewer employment rights. And as a result you vote conservative.

Cannot compute.

Barry Ewart's picture

Funny a Marxist author suggests that capitalism is running out of markets and needs 2 penetrate the public sector. Will the ex-public sector workers then rush out to thank the Tories 4 their new private sector cheap labour wages and conditions? I wonder how many of the new private sector jobs are actually ex-public sector jobs contracted out. I maintain the Toxic Tories ONLY HAVE ONE POLICY - CHEAP LABOUR!!

Paul Hillyard's picture

I don't trust these statistics.
Does this include jobs outsourced?
Does it include NHS staff once employed by the state but now miraculously private sector workers but still paid for by the state?
Smoke and mirrors and BS?

Indu Pendent's picture

@george
Isnt it true then that Labour expanded the public sector to win support? I've been posting about this on NS for over a year. Your interpretation above is a synical twist what Labour actually did.

No matter what a persons political view is, unless they are greedy and selfish, they should accept the corrupted use of public money by the last government to grow the public sector and buy votes was wrong. Our kids have to pay for it.

Arturo Bandini's picture

Enough with this "our kids have to pay for it" pish!

Each generation has always paid its predecessors debt - that's what national debt is you numbskull.

Jesus H. Corbett!

Indu Pendent's picture

No, things are different this time

- Tories borrowed £250Bn in 17 years
- Labour borrowed £600Bn in 11 years

The scale of borrowing of the last government was gargantuan - it sound like you dont realise how much they borrowed. Its a crippling amount of money. The more than double the debt accumulated in the previous 400 years.

We can reduce the debt through inflation and devaluing the currency but it will be a reduction in everyones living standard.

Manxman's picture

Well the Tories borrowed less because they were busy selling off the family silver through privatisation. Higher gas, electricity, bills etc in pursuit of private profit.

Indu Pendent's picture

Are you saying
- what Labour borrowed was minimal
- the Tories borrowing would be similar to Labour's if privatisation receipts were treated as borrowing?

BTW you are 100% factually incorrect to say bills have risen due to privatisation. E.g. prior to privatisation the post office increased prices near to inflation. Following the creation of private BT, the Ofcom pricing committee spent 10 year limiting the rate that BT was permitted to drop its prices in order to encourage competitors to grow like Orange etc.

The water and electricity network was a net drain on the public finances before privatisation. A bit like paying the interest on a loan. Selling them off reduced the State burden for Labour - had privatisation not taken place Labours borrowing would have been even higher. Following privatisation the water and electricity industries made radical improvements to their efficiencies cutting costs. The UK water industry is a world technology leader and exports all over the world.

Manxman's picture

I'm not saying Labour borrowing was minimal, but would be interesting to more fairly compare borrowings taking into account inflationary differences in raking in privatisation income. I'm not 100% incorrect because my point is not that privatisation created prices rises, but that the rate of increase is bigger due to the necessity to make huge profits. Hmmm water industry making improvements to their efficiencies cutting costs. So basically not bothering to spend money on fixing leaks, losing water in the process and instigating hosepipe bans. As long as the dividends are good though eh, that's the bottom line.

Manxman's picture

I'm not saying Labour borrowing was minimal, but would be interesting to more fairly compare borrowings taking into account inflationary differences in raking in privatisation income. I'm not 100% incorrect because my point is not that privatisation created prices rises, but that the rate of increase is bigger due to the necessity to make huge profits. Hmmm water industry making improvements to their efficiencies cutting costs. So basically not bothering to spend money on fixing leaks, losing water in the process and instigating hosepipe bans. As long as the dividends are good though eh, that's the bottom line.

mike cobley's picture

And the increasing deficit level proves that, really, its no big problem. After all, this country is just a vehicle for the rich to ride into the wealthy sunlit uplands, and to abandon and/or strip for parts if it goes into serious recession. So full speed ahead, maximising the pool of unemployed so that the unwashed will be grateful for being able to work three jobs that will only provide a mean, attenuated, hand-to-mouth existence. But who cares when the Real economy - finance and the City - is doing so well on the backs of a malleable, docile, de-unionised mass of desperate people.

Calloo callay, oh frabjous day! Trebles all round!

Mr Danger's picture

Does believing in this fictional, comic book version of the world make it easier for you?

Kanne Loggins's picture

does being an utter twat make it easier for you, cause you are trying way to hard.

Robert Taggart's picture

Nice one Gideon !
Now then, stop dragging your coat tails - and hurry along !
Blighty needs an army of lame-brain 'civil' servants like it needs a hole in its pockets !
No Liebore government = no more holes in our pockets. Sorted !

Kanne Loggins's picture

CUNT! Thats what Robert Taggart is, Next time you cross the road dont look left or right. Hurry along so we can laugh as you slip under the wheels of a lorry and it crushes the shit out of your brains.CUNT!

Latest tweets